Case Analysis: Erik Peterson (A) (B)
The most serious underlying problem of Erik Peterson is his incompetency in handling his current job. Peterson had no prior experience of constructing a cellular mobile telephone system that he was assigned to manage, and yet he couldn’t get along with many of his colleagues within the organization. In addition, Peterson’s immediate supervisor, Hardy, was also inexperienced to the industry, meanwhile Peterson had a hard time managing his team.
The reporting relationship between Peterson and Hardy was not clearly defined before their first encounter and thus has caused some awkward interactions between them. This situation signaled ambiguity ...view middle of the document...
He chose to tackle all of the technical difficulties on his own rather than delegating the...
In the startup of Green Mountain Cellular Telephone (GMCT), Erik Peterson had encountered several situations which can be considered by Thomas-Kilmann as unable to handle conflict situations. Peterson is a typical young, MBA graduated who was an Army Signal Corps Officer and did not have any experience in the cellular industry. He was hired by the company’s president, Ric Jenkins to continue the start up process at the GMCT, which faced several management problems. Nevertheless, his lack of management skills and being unable to provide effective leadership to his team has generated a domino effect in further deteriorating the startup operation.
In order to turn his operation around, Peterson must implement what Jack Welch called rules “What Leaders Do” (2005). He also must commit to understand, be aware of and deploy the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict management methods. He should first be conscious of his personal conflict behavior style, so he can better plan and organize an appropriate approach when associating with his boss as well as his subordinates. Therefore, it’s imperative that he understands the causes of those conflicts and to choose the right response to manage or resolve the conflict situations. Throughout the case study, Peterson’s behavior toward conflict could be portrayed as the “avoiding and accommodating approach”, (2007). Jeff Hardy and Curt Andrews were the two main sources of the problem. Hardy was a director of budgets and planning, who Peterson sees as the next person he has to report about the startup progress and to seek guidance or advice on issues from. Even though Hardy never had any system operating experience and did not have sufficient skills and experience to be able to provide Peterson any advice or direct guidance during the startup process. Andrews who assumed the position as Chief Engineer due to his previous title had difficulties in...
Problems to diagnose within the Erik Peterson Case:
Hardy – Peterson tension: both lack of experience in the technical field; no clearly defined reporting relationship. Peterson faced included lack of support from Hardy on decisions he made for the good of GMCT.
Peterson’s lack of expertise: lose confidence, can’t win arguments with Green and Cantor. Second-guessing of his decisions especially when there were problems.
Curt Andrews, his chief engineer has poor planning capabilities and lacks the system operating knowledge and expertise to help Peterson out by providing advice or guidance. Peterson wants to replace Curt with a more experienced leader in planning and managing, but it was not approved by the corporate.
Multiple management challenges among subordinates, all of which Peterson was handling well, but which required some decisions that required local knowledge to understand why they were good (e.g., moving...